Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

By present appeal, the appellants have assailed an order dated 23rd September, 1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on two counts. The first that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was not just and fair, it was inadequate and the other that the Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company was limited only to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and balance was to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that on 26th October, 1982, Sh. Yogesh Trehan (appellant No. 2 herein) and his father Sh. Yashpal Trehan were going on two wheeler scooter No. DLU-1675 being driven by Sh. Yogesh Trehan and they were hit by a truck bearing No. DHG-6383 with the result that father and son both fell from the scooter. While son who was driving the scooter fell on one side, the father fell on the other side and the father was run over by the truck. It was alleged that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. His father died on the spot.

3. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 47 years. He was the supervisor in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Shakur Basti, Delhi and was getting a gross salary of Rs. 2,697/- per month free from tax, as per evidence produced before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal made a deduction of 1/3rd amount from this salary towards his own expenses and considered dependency @ Rs. 1,800/- per month as the deceased had left behind widow and three children. A multiplier of 16 was applied and a compensation of Rs. 3,45,600/- was awarded. It was directed that the claimants would be entitled to 12 per cent interest over this amount from the date of filing of the petition.

4. The insurance company had argued that its liability was limited only to Rs. 1,50,000/-. It was not disputed that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. The initial policy was proved as RW 1/1 and its renewal for the period from 4th April, 1982 to 3rd April, 1983 was proved as Ex. RW 1/3. The Tribunal considered that the insurance company has placed on record tariff rates and the liability of the insurance company cannot be said to be unlimited in view of the amount of premium paid. Thus, the insurance company was having limited liability to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- in view of the amendment of Section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the minimum liability was changed from amount of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/. Thus, the Tribunal held that out of compensation of Rs. 3,45,600/-, insurance company would pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to claimants and remaining Rs. 1,95,600/- would be paid by the owner Sh. Arjan Dass (respondent No. 2 herein) to claimants.

5. During appeal it has been strenuously argued by counsel for the insurance company that the liability of insurance company was limited only to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Reliance was place on New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shashikalabai and Ors. 2006 ACJ 194 ; Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veena Pruthi and others, (1989) ACJ 1163, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.M. Jaya and Others, (2002) 1 ACC 271, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maya Rani Roy and Others, (2003) ACJ 1028, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and Others, AIR 2008 SC 403, Veena Pruthi and Ors. v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited LPA No. 30 of 1989 decided on 25th November 2009 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur and Others, AIR 2004 SC 1581.

6. On the other hand counsel for the appellants has submitted that the policy issued by the insurance company was not an 'Act Only Policy'. The insurance company had charged premium of Rs. 240/- which covered unlimited public risk. If the policy had been a policy of 'Act Only Policy' covering limited liability as provided under